I'm wondering, with America's wierd wierd WIERD law system, if the running thief would have used the knife to defend himself after beeing kicked and chased and kills the black belt, would it be self defence ? He was running away so the attacker became the black belt dude right ?

yea, cos rolling around fighting trying to choke or armlock the cashier up features highly in the majority of hit & run thief's strategies :4robot:

Haha, so true.

"This is a heist!"
"You'll never get my money!"
"Triangle Choke!"
"Agh!"
"Freeze!"
"Bah, cops are here already? I haven't knocked the guy out yet!"

Gotta say, that guy was crazy for taking on the kid, and lucky that the kid was actually not really looking to fight anyone. It's risky calling someone's bluff on the intimidation thing. I guess though that the kid would much rather be in jail for a little bit instead of forever because of a stabbing.

Most self-defense laws would state that the kung fu man is the "aggressor" once he starts chasing or if he attacks the guy after he's "on the ground." At least in Pennsylvania, I know if you knock a guy down, and then naturally end the fight from there, the law ends up screwing YOU because you were "kicking a guy who was disengaged." I don't know how for the life of me that the law could consider a person on his back as "out of the fight," but that's the law for you. So if you're ever in a crowd, you're no the designated bouncer, and your aggressor falls on the floor, don't kick him or do anything to him from there. They'll just end up arresting you. *shrug*